PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 12, 2011
Defense Cost-Type Contracting Reform Act of 2011 - Directs the Secretary of Defense to modify Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition regulations to prohibit the DOD from entering into cost-type contracts for the production of certain major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs).
Amends the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 to expand the conditions required to be met before the Milestone Decision Authority may authorize a cost-type contract for development of certain MDAPs. Requires such conditions to include additional written determinations that: (1) all reasonable efforts have been made to define the requirements sufficiently to allow for the use of a fixed-price contract for such development; and (2) the DOD, despite these efforts, cannot define requirements sufficiently to allow for the use of such a fixed-price contract.
Requires the Secretary, at least 30 days before issuing a solicitation for the development of an MDAP, to submit to Congress a notice of the proposed award including the written determinations required under such Act and the reasons supporting the determinations.
People & committees
Sen. McCain, John [R-AZ] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1694 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1694 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1694 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1694 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.